At 4/20/2014 2:33:24 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:Can you not rally voters please? The legitimacy of the votes can get edgy if you do.

With KC's vote the "legitimacy" of the votes already went out the window. Besides, this forum OP was 100% objective. I'm not saying to vote for me or vote for you, but simply to vote. What, are you scared to have more people read and vote on the debate?

After being called out, KC1999 actually defended his vote, and you still harassed him. Just don't do that in the future please.

"I have been asked to further justify the debate decision that I have made, and this I shall do so. I find the usage of philosophy in this argument really unconvincing. Philosophy is sometimes, and as is in this case, subjective. Nietzche's philosophy was rejected by some, and to base the entire first round on the philosophy of Nietzche is dangerous. Pro's arguments on economics, on the other hand, was very convincing; it shows how much investment could mean to the United States of America.

The economic rebuttals given by con were, more or less, refuted when pro introduced graph and visual information of his own; however, both sides use considerable amount of name calling and ad hominem (I think that's what it's called). This increases the intensity of this debate and diverts it from it's true purpose; to attack the opponent's points.

Argument wise, this debate was very close. Conduct wise, this debate belonged to pro. Good job to you both. Good day." -KC1999

Thank you for bringing up his justification in a place where I can use rich text. I'll go through and bold every part of the justification I take issue with because it was never brought up in the debate and italicize the parts that have insufficient justification to.

"I have been asked to further justify the debate decision that I have made, and this I shall do so. I find the usage of philosophy in this argument really unconvincing.Philosophy is sometimes, and as is in this case, subjective. Nietzche's philosophy was rejected by some, and to base the entire first round on the philosophy of Nietzche is dangerous. Pro's arguments on economics, on the other hand, was very convincing; it shows how much investment could mean to the United States of America.

The economic rebuttals given by con were, more or less, refuted when pro introduced graph and visual information of his own; however, both sides use considerable amount of name calling and ad hominem (I think that's what it's called). This increases the intensity of this debate and diverts it from it's true purpose; to attack the opponent's points.

Argument wise, this debate was very close. Conduct wise, this debate belonged to pro. Good job to you both. Good day." -KC1999

The bolded was never once mentioned in the debate. The first italicized doesn't even mention the fact that I had three rebuttals that were virtually unaddressed, and the only time you addressed them was when you were making new arguments in the final round (the round that we weren't even supposed to be debating in, by the way). The second italicized relies on new arguments in the final round being weighed, which is insanely unfair to me.

What's left, then, is conduct vote and a bunch of "pro was more convincing" dithering that doesn't justify anything. It's a vote bomb, clear and simple.

I actually talked to Airmax about that. The mods actually HAVENT taken action yet. That means that an OUTSIDE READER asked Kc to justify the vote. The fact that some 100% random person took issue with the vote enough to PM kc to ask him to justify it more shows exactly how sh*t of a vote it was.

You did bring up nietzche,

Why is this an actual sentence?

but in actuallity, he didn't even need to justify his vote.

Oh god...please....you're literally giving me cancer.

He did so in his RFD

I have officially lost all faith in humanity and new users on this site.

I actually talked to Airmax about that. The mods actually HAVENT taken action yet. That means that an OUTSIDE READER asked Kc to justify the vote. The fact that some 100% random person took issue with the vote enough to PM kc to ask him to justify it more shows exactly how sh*t of a vote it was.

I asked him to justify his vote. I didn't want you attacking him, and I wanted him to expand his points

You did bring up nietzche,

Why is this an actual sentence?

but in actuallity, he didn't even need to justify his vote.

Oh god...please....you're literally giving me cancer.

He did so in his RFD

I have officially lost all faith in humanity and new users on this site.

I actually talked to Airmax about that. The mods actually HAVENT taken action yet. That means that an OUTSIDE READER asked Kc to justify the vote. The fact that some 100% random person took issue with the vote enough to PM kc to ask him to justify it more shows exactly how sh*t of a vote it was.

I asked him to justify his vote. I didn't want you attacking him, and I wanted him to expand his points

So let me get this straight. You ask him to justify his votes, then you said that he didn't need to justify anything, You're being 100% contradictory. Just come out and admit the blatantly obvious right now: you asked kc to votebomb in your favor.

I actually talked to Airmax about that. The mods actually HAVENT taken action yet. That means that an OUTSIDE READER asked Kc to justify the vote. The fact that some 100% random person took issue with the vote enough to PM kc to ask him to justify it more shows exactly how sh*t of a vote it was.

I asked him to justify his vote. I didn't want you attacking him, and I wanted him to expand his points

So let me get this straight. You ask him to justify his votes, then you said that he didn't need to justify anything, You're being 100% contradictory. Just come out and admit the blatantly obvious right now: you asked kc to votebomb in your favor.

He doesn't have to justify, but I knew you would harass him if he didn't. You were acting like an arse to him. That's unacceptable.

I actually talked to Airmax about that. The mods actually HAVENT taken action yet. That means that an OUTSIDE READER asked Kc to justify the vote. The fact that some 100% random person took issue with the vote enough to PM kc to ask him to justify it more shows exactly how sh*t of a vote it was.

I asked him to justify his vote. I didn't want you attacking him, and I wanted him to expand his points

So let me get this straight. You ask him to justify his votes, then you said that he didn't need to justify anything, You're being 100% contradictory. Just come out and admit the blatantly obvious right now: you asked kc to votebomb in your favor.

He doesn't have to justify, but I knew you would harass him if he didn't. You were acting like an arse to him. That's unacceptable.

What's unacceptable is that you feel that you have to ask newer members to votebomb in your favor to try and win a debate. THAT'S what's unacceptable.

I actually talked to Airmax about that. The mods actually HAVENT taken action yet. That means that an OUTSIDE READER asked Kc to justify the vote. The fact that some 100% random person took issue with the vote enough to PM kc to ask him to justify it more shows exactly how sh*t of a vote it was.

I asked him to justify his vote. I didn't want you attacking him, and I wanted him to expand his points

So let me get this straight. You ask him to justify his votes, then you said that he didn't need to justify anything, You're being 100% contradictory. Just come out and admit the blatantly obvious right now: you asked kc to votebomb in your favor.

He doesn't have to justify, but I knew you would harass him if he didn't. You were acting like an arse to him. That's unacceptable.

What's unacceptable is that you feel that you have to ask newer members to votebomb in your favor to try and win a debate. THAT'S what's unacceptable.

What's unacceptable is that you feel that you have to ask newer members to votebomb in your favor to try and win a debate. THAT'S what's unacceptable.

.... -_-

Dude. It's blatantly obvious. Just admit it. You'll get laughed at for a little bit, yeah, but it'll be forgotten in a week or so. If you try and deny it it's only gonna become more of a drama fest and you'll probably get slapped around by Airmax's massive banhammah dick.

What's unacceptable is that you feel that you have to ask newer members to votebomb in your favor to try and win a debate. THAT'S what's unacceptable.

.... -_-

Dude. It's blatantly obvious. Just admit it. You'll get laughed at for a little bit, yeah, but it'll be forgotten in a week or so. If you try and deny it it's only gonna become more of a drama fest and you'll probably get slapped around by Airmax's massive banhammah dick.

Can you both please give it a rest already?!

Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.
Deep down, we're all dumbassses who act like shittheads

because it never happens. It's either a flame war or a formal system. If it's not then there are more than two members and/or wall'o'text rants. It's good to see a 1v1 argument resolve with a clear victor too.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

because it never happens. It's either a flame war or a formal system. If it's not then there are more than two members and/or wall'o'text rants. It's good to see a 1v1 argument resolve with a clear victor too.

Have you seen their last argument? It lasted days! ^^ comment section for the debate they are talking about.

Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.
Deep down, we're all dumbassses who act like shittheads

because it never happens. It's either a flame war or a formal system. If it's not then there are more than two members and/or wall'o'text rants. It's good to see a 1v1 argument resolve with a clear victor too.

Have you seen their last argument? It lasted days! ^^ comment section for the debate they are talking about.

No I haven't seen it, now that you mention it...

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

because it never happens. It's either a flame war or a formal system. If it's not then there are more than two members and/or wall'o'text rants. It's good to see a 1v1 argument resolve with a clear victor too.

Have you seen their last argument? It lasted days! ^^ comment section for the debate they are talking about.

No I haven't seen it, now that you mention it...

It is summed up by: (NO OFFENSE TO Z & J)J: I can beat Zaradi!Z: WHAT?! YOU CANT JUST SAY THAT! LET'S DO A DEBATE SO I CAL PROVE YOU WRONG!J: Okay Let's do A B C D.Z: Ok*J sets up debateZ: WTH! THAT IS NOT A B C D! THAT IS A B E D!J: Sorry! I agree with this!Z: No! That means the resolution is unfair! Ugh! You troll!J: Wait! I did tell you A B E D!Z: No! You said before you didn't!(continues for a few hours)J: If you have a problem, decline the debate and I'll do it with someone else!Z: YOU ARE A TROLL! This is unfair! But let's do it anyways.*J and Z insult one another through a debate

That is summing it up through impartial eyes.

Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.
Deep down, we're all dumbassses who act like shittheads

So Jifpop is the next big thing? I didn't think he was anything amazing. He is a very good debater and very knowledgeable person, but I thought he was one of the many very good debaters on this site. I suppose I should have been more careful if that is the case before accepting one of his debates...

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell

because it never happens. It's either a flame war or a formal system. If it's not then there are more than two members and/or wall'o'text rants. It's good to see a 1v1 argument resolve with a clear victor too.

Have you seen their last argument? It lasted days! ^^ comment section for the debate they are talking about.

No I haven't seen it, now that you mention it...

It is summed up by: (NO OFFENSE TO Z & J)J: I can beat Zaradi!Z: WHAT?! YOU CANT JUST SAY THAT! LET'S DO A DEBATE SO I CAL PROVE YOU WRONG!J: Okay Let's do A B C D.Z: Ok*J sets up debateZ: WTH! THAT IS NOT A B C D! THAT IS A B E D!J: Sorry! I agree with this!Z: No! That means the resolution is unfair! Ugh! You troll!J: Wait! I did tell you A B E D!Z: No! You said before you didn't!(continues for a few hours)J: If you have a problem, decline the debate and I'll do it with someone else!Z: YOU ARE A TROLL! This is unfair! But let's do it anyways.*J and Z insult one another through a debate

At 4/20/2014 8:18:38 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:So Jifpop is the next big thing? I didn't think he was anything amazing. He is a very good debater and very knowledgeable person, but I thought he was one of the many very good debaters on this site. I suppose I should have been more careful if that is the case before accepting one of his debates...

I'd say that he's set to become the next STALIN; pretty good debater but way underrated in terms of reputation.

At 4/20/2014 8:18:38 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:So Jifpop is the next big thing? I didn't think he was anything amazing. He is a very good debater and very knowledgeable person, but I thought he was one of the many very good debaters on this site. I suppose I should have been more careful if that is the case before accepting one of his debates...

I'd say that he's set to become the next STALIN; pretty good debater but way underrated in terms of reputation.

True

Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.
Deep down, we're all dumbassses who act like shittheads

because it never happens. It's either a flame war or a formal system. If it's not then there are more than two members and/or wall'o'text rants. It's good to see a 1v1 argument resolve with a clear victor too.

Have you seen their last argument? It lasted days! ^^ comment section for the debate they are talking about.

No I haven't seen it, now that you mention it...

It is summed up by: (NO OFFENSE TO Z & J)J: I can beat Zaradi!Z: WHAT?! YOU CANT JUST SAY THAT! LET'S DO A DEBATE SO I CAL PROVE YOU WRONG!J: Okay Let's do A B C D.Z: Ok*J sets up debateZ: WTH! THAT IS NOT A B C D! THAT IS A B E D!J: Sorry! I agree with this!Z: No! That means the resolution is unfair! Ugh! You troll!J: Wait! I did tell you A B E D!Z: No! You said before you didn't!(continues for a few hours)J: If you have a problem, decline the debate and I'll do it with someone else!Z: YOU ARE A TROLL! This is unfair! But let's do it anyways.*J and Z insult one another through a debate

That is summing it up through impartial eyes.

Update

J: *asks a bunch of noobs to vote*Z: *asks a bunch of seniors the vote**barely any noobs show up**lots of seniors show up**Zaradi wins debate*